Organizations spreading climate misinformation

The Real Enemies of Progress: How Industry Associations Are Driving Us Towards Environmental Catastrophe In the same way that history condemns those who defended slavery, colonialism, and apartheid, we must recognize any modern-day institutions that are obstructing our efforts to combat climate change. These associations are not just resisting progress—they are actively pushing us towards environmental disaster. * American Petroleum Institute (API): The ultimate fossil fuel lobby, API has spent decades denying climate science and lobbying against clean energy, cementing its role as a major barrier to progress. * American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM): AFPM is relentless in its defense of fossil fuels, opposing emissions reductions and clean energy alternatives at every turn. *U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Once a respected business organization, the Chamber now prioritizes the interests of the wealthiest members, obstructing essential climate legislation and promoting the status quo. * National Mining Association (NMA): A staunch defender of coal, the NMA works to undermine environmental regulations, prolonging our dependence on the dirtiest energy source available. * BusinessEurope: This EU lobby group fights against ambitious climate policies, putting short-term profits ahead of long-term survival and betraying future generations. * Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP): Representing the oil sands industry, CAPP aggressively pushes for expansion, making Canada a major offender in the global climate crisis. * German Automotive Association: The group resist the shift to electric vehicles and stringent emissions standards, blocking essential progress in reducing Europe’s carbon footprint. * California Chamber of Commerce: Even in progressive California, the Chamber opposes environmental regulations, putting corporate profits above the state’s environmental goals. * Federation of German Industries (BDI): BDI fights against ambitious climate policies in Germany, arguing against regulations that would drive sustainability. * International Air Transport Association (IATA): Despite being a major contributor to global emissions, IATA lobbies against efforts to regulate or reduce the aviation sector’s environmental impact. Based on InfluenceMap, these associations are top defenders of a system that prioritizes profit over people, corporate interests over community well-being, and short-term gains over long-term survival. Where that is true, It’s time to call out these organizations for what they are: the enemies of progress, standing in the way of a sustainable and just future. Where that is true, future generations will look back on these associations and their leaders and members with contempt. The stakes are global, and the costs of their obstructionism are existential. If we are to save the planet, we must confront all those powerful players who are determined to keep us on a path to destruction. #leadership

🌍 Ten Years After Paris: is the Climate Crisis a Disinformation Crisis? In 2015, the world made a historic promise: to keep global warming well below 2°C, and ideally below 1.5°C. We committed to major emission cuts by 2030, and net-zero by 2050. The Paris Agreement marked a new era of global climate cooperation. But ten years on, we're still struggling with cooperation while the World Meteorological Organization tells us that the Earth’s average temperature exceeded 1.5°C over a 12-month period (Feb 2023–Jan 2024) for the first time. Why? 🔍 A groundbreaking new study, led by 14 researchers for the International Panel on the Information Environment, reviewed 300 studies from 2015–2025. The findings are alarming: powerful interests – fossil fuel companies, populist parties, even some governments – are systematically spreading misleading narratives to delay climate action. 🧠 Misinformation isn't just about denying climate change. It’s now about strategic skepticism – minimizing the threat, casting doubt on science-based solutions, and greenwashing unsustainable practices. 📺 This disinformation flows through social media, news outlets, corporate reports, and even policy briefings. It targets all of us – but especially policymakers, where it can shape laws and delay critical decisions. 💡 So what can we do? 1️⃣ Legislate for transparency and integrity in climate communication. 2️⃣ Hold greenwashers accountable through legal action. 3️⃣ Build global coalitions of civil society, science, and public institutions. 4️⃣ Invest in climate and media literacy for both citizens and leaders. 5️⃣ Amplify voices from underrepresented regions – like Africa – where more research is urgently needed. We must protect not only the planet’s climate, but the integrity of climate information. 🔗 Read more on how disinformation is undermining climate progress – and what we can do about it: https://lnkd.in/eDN9hKAJ 🕰️ The window is small. But with truth, science, and collective action, we can still turn the tide.

I've been covering climate disinformation for a very long time and something that's been stuck in my craw the past couple of years is the fact that people often talk about it as something that happened in the past. But with so many of the climate "solutions" the fossil fuel industry proposes, the exact same issues are continuing to play out: they know these aren't really solutions, they know that they will never scale, and that is why they push them. It's part of the "discourses of delay" that social scientists talk about, or what Alex Steffen calls "predatory delay." The industry spends billions of dollars a year to fund university research, lobbying, advertising, and PR campaigns that create the illusion that its preferred "solutions" will work, even as its own scientists and technologists are telling it they won't. They hire management consultancies to draw up charts and graphs that lend credibility to these "solutions" too, and then those consultancies can throw up their hands and say "we just did the analysis they asked for, we didn't know they were going to use it to obstruct climate action!" Over the course of this summer we'll be running a new investigative series at Drilled Media digging into these efforts. Loads of both web and audio stories coming your way, but first up, a deep dive from me and Andy Rowell on how U.S. LNG producers are trying to position liquefied natural gas—a fossil fuel—as a climate solution, and use that "green" cred to lobby both EU and US politicians on increasing U.S. LNG exports to Europe. https://lnkd.in/gbFWNpcb

When we see CEOs earning tens of millions of dollars—sometimes hundreds of times more than their employees—it forces us to question what and who we truly value as a society. Teachers, social workers, and others who dedicate their lives to building stronger communities often require advanced degrees, yet many struggle to earn a living wage. Meanwhile, some of the wealthiest CEOs are leading companies that contribute to pressing issues like wealth inequality and environmental harm, raising serious ethical concerns about the systems we’ve created. I'll be highlighting the companies listed on the AFL-CIO Highest Paid CEOs Watchlist which you can find at https://hubs.li/Q037Vl0N0. Darren Woods is the CEO of ExxonMobil (Ticker: XOM), who took home $35.9 million in 2023 while leading a company that has spent decades actively misleading the public, stalling climate progress, and profiting off environmental destruction. ExxonMobil’s business model isn’t just about oil—it’s about deliberate deception, aggressive legal battles, and exploiting every possible loophole to maintain control. 🔹 Climate Denial, Then Greenwashing – Exxon knew about climate change as early as the 1970s, with internal research accurately predicting global warming. Instead of acting, the company spent decades funding misinformation campaigns to delay action while publicly pretending the science was “uncertain.” Now? They’ve pivoted to greenwashing, touting carbon capture projects that—shock—help them keep drilling. 🔹 Suing Shareholders Who Want Climate Action – Exxon just sued their own shareholders when they proposed a resolution demanding stronger climate action. They responded to them with a lawsuit to stop them from even bringing it to a vote. This is a blatant attack on corporate democracy, what little there is left of it. 🔹 Plastic Pollution and Recycling Lies – Remember when we were told recycling plastic would save the planet? ExxonMobil was one of the biggest pushers of that myth, despite knowing for decades that most plastic isn’t actually recyclable. California is suing ExxonMobil for misleading the public about plastic pollution while continuing to flood the planet with non-recyclable waste. 🔹 Government Handouts for ‘Climate Solutions’ That Keep Oil Flowing – ExxonMobil has secured billions in public subsidies for carbon capture and storage—but instead of using it to reduce emissions, they’re using it to pump more oil. Carbon capture allows them to inject CO₂ into oil fields to squeeze even more fossil fuels out of the ground, all while pretending they’re “part of the solution.” ExxonMobil isn’t just a problem—it’s THE problem. They're one of the worst actors in corporate America, and Woods is getting millions to keep it that way. #ClimateCrisis #CorporateAccountability #ExxonMobil #Greenwashing #FossilFuels #PlasticPollution #ExecutiveCompensation

This chart has been making the rounds on social media. It suggests that renewables increase electricity prices. But it's misleading and pretty typical of the author, whose nonprofit has received ~$1m from ExxonMobil. As Andrew Dessler writes in an excellent article (linked in the comments), this chart shows *retail* electricity costs. But in Europe that can be distorted significantly by taxes and fees, which are especially high in countries like Denmark and Germany. "A better analysis would use the cost of generating power in order to isolate the impact of renewables. We can get a better estimate of that by using the wholesale price of electricity" And there's *zero correlation* between wholesale electricity prices and renewable penetration in Europe. So what drives electricity prices in Europe? The cost of natural gas. As Dessler writes: "In countries that utilize wholesale power markets, it is the most expensive generator that sets the wholesale price. This is almost always a natural gas generator." The misleading chart below that has gone viral on X and LinkedIn is pretty typical work of Chris Martz, who works at CFACT a climate denial think tank that is funded by fossil fuel interests. CFACT claims they haven't received fossil fuel funding for more than a decade. But during the bankruptcy proceedings of Murray Energy—one of the country's largest coal mining companies—there was a papertrail of donations to CFACT. The nonprofit has also received money from the Koch Foundation and ExxonMobil, two of the largest funders of climate disinformation. I've spent much of the last few years writing posts debunking this kind of disinformation and amplifying the work of rigorous researchers like Andrew Dessler. It's annoying and tiring and sometimes seems futile. But most people are open-minded and persuadable. Often it's the last piece of information in that will inform their opinion about a topic. I think that fighting lies with facts is important. And one of the most important lies we can fight is that renewables make your electricity bills higher. That's not true and we need to shout it from the rooftops.

BREAKING: Changing Markets Foundation new report exposes how a group of misinfluecers, such as pro-industry scientists, carnivorous diet doctors and nutritionists, organised to undermine the launch of EAT-Lancet report in 2019. Our findings show two industry-linked hashtags around which the attack converged, and how a tight group of seemingly independent experts continuously tagged each other and posted each other's content, leading to misinformation peaks in the run-up and after the report's launch. This investigation breaks new ground by creating a heatmap of the online backlash to identify the most influential voices. Together with fresh evidence of industry planning, we shed new light on the degree to which the backlash was orchestrated and has become a template for possible further attacks on climate science underpinning food system transformation. Published in early January 2019, the EAT-Lancet paper offered a framework for a ‘planetary health diet’ that, in a world of 10 billion people, balanced human nutrition with ecological sustainability. It was devised by 37 leading scientists from 16 countries working in human health, agriculture, political science and environmental sustainability. The paper is one of the most influential scientific reports ever released, but its potential implications for the meat industry triggered a coordinated online backlash. The report underscores the growing threat that mis- and disinformation poses to meaningful climate action, something we will explore during our event at Climate Week NYC 2025 today. It also represents a threat for the launch of the second EAT Lancet, expected in early October.

📣 Major new U.S. climate litigation: The Justice Department of Puerto Rico is targeting 8 fossil fuel companies in a 1 billion dollar lawsuit. The Justice Department is drawing on civil, environmental and antitrust frameworks. Puerto Rico joins a growing list of cities, counties, and states in the U.S. that are suing big oil over its climate misinformation and climate impact. 𝐇𝐞𝐫𝐞’𝐬 𝐚 𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞: ▶ It’s another case where it is alleged that fossil fuel companies have continued to cause pollution despite their decades-long knowledge of the devastating consequences of their operations. ▶ Even more so, the companies carried out disinformation campaigns to discredit the scientific consensus on climate change and create doubt in the minds of the general public. ▶ The lawsuit also refers to the greenwashing the companies allegedly engage in. Specifically highlighting (1) exaggerations of investments in certain low-carbon energy resources, without disclosing that these are negligible compared to their continued involvement in fossil fuels; and (2) marketing fossil fuel products as environmentally friendly despite being major contributors to climate change. ▶ The misinformation helped sustain the fossil fuel market which has caused devastating climate change impacts in Puerto Rico. ▶ The Justice Department wants the fossil fuel companies to compensate for the costs of damages caused by climate change, rather than the taxpayer having to carry the burden. 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐞: ▶ Fossil fuel companies love resorting to energy security and energy affordability arguments in climate litigation. This Puerto Rican lawsuit pre-empts these arguments by stating that it’s the companies’ own misinformation that has caused our dependence on fossil fuels. ▶ At least one of the defendants is a subsidiary that is mostly involved with the selling and marketing of fossil fuel products. This fits neatly within the trend of accountability for ‘advertised emissions’. *Everything here is alleged. #ClimateLitigation #BigOil #PuertoRico

I subscribe to Anthony Klan’s newsletter, The Klaxon, to get all the news and information on how the fossil fuel industry is injecting lies into the Australian public debate on reducing carbon emissions and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources: The right-wing lobby group that ran the “No” campaign against the Indigenous Voice was one of the biggest spreaders of fossil fuels propaganda ahead of the federal election, a major study has found. An Australian Research Council study has found “Advance” injected “highly polarising, misleading claims” about “renewables, nuclear and fossil gas” into the national debate before the May poll. The lobby group — which falsely claims to be movement of “ordinary Australians” — generated around 193 million digital ad impressions in the four months to election day. The activity placed Advance “in the same league as the major parties”, the study found. “Third party advocacy groups with links to fossil fuel interests or right-wing political movements were among the most active spenders on digital advertising in the lead up to the 2025 federal election,” it states. “Most third-party advertising during the 2025 federal election focused on energy costs, nuclear power and climate action, framing vested interests as ‘ordinary Australians’.” The study, by the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society, has been filed as a submission to the Senate inquiry into climate misinformation. “Most third-party advertising…framed vested interests as ‘ordinary Australians’,” — ARC Study Advance ran the “No” campaign against the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, aggressively spreading disinformation in its fight against the proposal. As previously reported, despite claiming to be a “grassroots” movement of “ordinary Aussies”, Advance was bankrolled by handful of mega-millionaires, many with deep ties to fossil fuels. One of the biggest impediments to aggressive fossil fuels expansion globally has been Indigenous rights. The authors of the ARC study analysed the political ad library of Meta, owner of Facebook and Instagram, between January 1 and the federal election on May 3. It also installed software on the phones of 106 participants, located in key electorates, to track political advertisements over the two weeks to election day. The study found fossil fuels-backed misinformation was rampant. “Astroturfing” — where vested interests create fronts and pretend to be genuine community movements — was widespread, and being used as a “systemic strategy” by “mainstream political and corporate players”. “Campaigns designed to appear grassroots are in fact coordinated, well-financed, and often linked to major political parties, donors, or lobby groups,” it states. In the four months to election day, Advance ran 4,443 paid Meta ads, spending between $1 million and $1.6m, “generating around 193 million impressions”. Read more here: https://theklaxon.com.au

The fossil fuel industry is spending millions to spread climate disinformation on social media—and it’s working. They fund misleading ads, fake “grassroots” campaigns, and influencers to downplay the climate crisis and delay real action. A 2021 analysis found that 16 major polluters, including ExxonMobil and Chevron, placed over 1,700 climate disinformation ads on Facebook—garnering 150 million views and funneling nearly $5 million into the platform. Their goal? To create confusion, sow doubt, and stall climate policies. Last year, ExxonMobil alone ran 350+ targeted ads to block legislation phasing out natural gas in New York. And social media algorithms, which boost emotional and controversial content, are only accelerating the spread of these posts. The fossil fuel industry thrives on division. The more they can confuse the public, the harder it is to pass climate policies that curb emissions and transition to renewables. Even well-meaning people can unknowingly spread disinformation—especially when misleading content is tailored to their biases. So, what can we do? ⁍ Question the source of climate information before sharing. ⁍ Support independent climate journalism and fact-based reporting. ⁍ Push for stronger regulations on mis/disinformation in digital spaces. #ClimateMisinformation #FossilFuels #SocialMedia #ClimateAction #RenewableEnergy #Misinformation #ClimateChange

Please check out this new report from Climate Action Against Disinformation on the state of our polluted information environment as #Cop29 gets underway. Their findings: **Opposition to renewables: Despite having years to clean up their platforms, Big Tech continues to allow a small number of “super-spreaders” to pollute their platforms with debunked claims attacking renewable energy and electric vehicles. Many claims are uncannily similar to ones seen during COP26, three years ago. Increasingly, renewable energies are also framed as a tool for social control. **Weaponising wildfires: Disinformation operations are exploiting extreme weather events to fuel opposition to climate policies, and recently, have led to threats of violence against emergency response personnel. Content actively seeks to decouple extreme weather from its environmental drivers. **Fossil fuel advertising on Meta: Fossil fuel companies continue to use digital advertising to launder their image. Eight fossil fuel advertisers paid just one platform, Meta, at least $17.6 million for over 700 million impressions over the past year. The common thread here is the attempt of this propaganda to foment insurrections against a perceived government control. It's anti-democracy and deeply dangerous even for the people to whom it's targeted. In the wake of extreme weather unnatural disasters, we need trust in community and institutions more than ever! Read the whole report here: https://lnkd.in/eJFc4Apd